Chapters 1 and 2

A study on the Transmission of the New Testament writings

The first two chapters help us gain a perspective of how the New Testament writings came about. We know from the other letters that Paul, whose earliest letters were written in AD50 or close to it and are among the earliest NT writings of all, were even at this early time addressed to established churches whose creeds already contained the high Christology of modern-day Christianity. We can infer from this that the Gospels themselves would have been forged in the context of these very communities, thus making it unlikely that the gospels writers were introducing anything new teaching or anecdotal material into them. On the contrary, these communities would have had some form of preservation of the memories of the events of the life and events of Jesus, in whatever form, whether written/ memorized and/or liturgically ritualised. The writers of the Gospels wound indeed have been part of those communities, attending those churches, even having established them in the first place.

At this early stage it would not be hard to conceive that the traditions preserved not just sayings of Jesus, but also a memory of the narratives and events around those sayings that provided their context. It likely that Luke himself refers to none other than this the preface to his writing: “since many have undertaken to set don an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word…” (1:1,2). That’s the first point we’re making here, that an early Christian community would not have arrived at the creeds that they did arrive at had they not had a mnemonic basis for it, the very material, whatever the form of it was, that fed into the Gospels. On this basis it would seem uneccesary to see writings that came after Mark, like Matthew which came around 5 decades after Jesus, as embellishing the sparser writings like that of Mark which came earlier. Rather they were merely incorporating those same memories whether written or handed down into Mark.

The prevailing theory seems to be a certain “two-source” hypothesis, which is that Matthew and Luke took material from both Mark, as well as a mysterious “Q” source which has since become lost. This is based on the fact that the former two have a large amount of material that is taken nearly verbatic from Mark (around 40-45%, each, and comprising 76% of Mark), but in addition also holding around 25% of their own material in common with each other. It is therefore inferred that this common material must have come from a second unknown source, just like the other common material came from a known source, Mark. That sounds like a strong argument in the face of it.

However scholars like Mark Goodacre and Goulder before him point out that this is hardly a necessary conclusion. He indicates that when two students present the same material in their test, it might be more ilkely that they copied from each other, rather than both copying from an independent source. In order to determine which of these possibilities is more likely one would have to examine other characteristics of the material in question. First, there are many sections of Mark that both Matthew and Luke edit the same way. An example Goodacre gives is () Luke being almost certainly later, it would imply that he copied Matthews editing of Mark. For example, there are places where the same additional lines are added to certain passages, like the passage about John baptizing. For them to have copied those additions of Mark and passages from q would mean that q had copied from Mark and edited him. Which would defeat the purpose of q.

A further point is that because it can be shown that Luke very likely used the text of Matthew, and both Luke and Matthew used the text of Mark, that these texts had assumed a stable form at least at the time that they were so employed, therefore giving us a stable text for Mark by AD70 and Matthew in the early second century. Again, the reason that the texts must have been stable is necessitated by nature of the common material, which shows large passages that are nearly verbatim and in common.

Next, Paul in Galatians makes the claim which provides us with the possibility of an independent textual tradition, if it is to be believed, and we will provide reasons for why it might be. First, Paul is quite clear that he has primary material that he does not receive from others, rather he receives it de novo. In terms of corroboration, first we have Luke, who repeats the events of Paul’s conversion in his own account in Acts. That there is dense corroboration of Paul’s conversion from multiple other contemporaries mentioned in these texts. Perhaps most notably, Ananias who receives a revelation from God about Paul’s vision before Paul himself is also told to come to him, and who becomes the instrument of Paul’s healing and receiving of the Holy Spirit. which is the cause of his accepting Paul’s testimony as genuine in the first place. Arguably most powerful witness though is the powerful nature of Paul’s conversion itself whereby a persecutor of the early Christians is converted into one of them. Such a story would be very difficult to fabricate and get accepted into the community. If we attempt to describe those difficulties, we can note that if indeed this is a staged converstion, then it is difficult to see a motive, because Paul does not get monetary or sexual renumeration from his endeavour in the course of the rest of his life. For example, in 1Cor,9:1-18 he defends his righ to receive financial support from teh church, however he explains that he has chosenn not to use this right in order to avoid placing any obstacle in the way of hte gospel of Christ. Further, he mentions that other apostles including Peter do receive support, but he has voluntarily chosen not to, so as to offer the gospel free of charge. In fact in Acts 18:1-3 that he continues his work as a tent maker while staying with the disciples Aquila, a Jew from Pontus, and Priscilla his wife. He notes how he worked in order not to be a burden on the community (1Cor4:12 “we worked hard with out own hands”, 1Thess.2:9 “we worked night and day in order not to be a burden to anyone while we preached the gospel of God to you”, and again in 2Thess.3:7-8 “⁷For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not irresponsible when we were with you, ⁸ and we did not eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day so that we might not burden any of you. ⁹ This was not because we do not have that right but in order to give you an example to imitate.” Further he goes on to say that even though the apostles have the right to take alog a believing wife, which once again the other apostles including Peter does, he chooses not to exercise this right either. That is not to say that merely the ascetisism authenticates the story, but it is the story of conversion of a prominent and even feared figure, and the difficulty in having such a conversion story, itself involving those persons that previously feared him for his antipathy, to then be accepted by those same persons. In the case of Christianity all this is the more compelling for precisely the reason that that the cult of Christ is early, and already pre-dates these events in Paul’s life.

Paul’s narrative also serves to help us understand why the so much of the Synoptic material is held in common- Paul says that hemet with the apostles “to make sure that I was not running. or had not run in vain” (2:2). What else could this mean other than some form of comparing of notes, even if only theological notes. None of the NT writers make any mention of a circulating text that is being referenced, but that does not preclude their having been a dense theological exchange between Paul and the other apostles, indeed the significance of the matter would demand it. The fact that these intellectual exchanges referenced in Acts, in Paul’s letters and in Luke’s preface never refer to a single source goes againt the existence of a single historical “Q” source. Paul spends three years with Peter and the apostles in Jerusalem, including Jesus’ own brother James, himself a famous and prominent convert to Christianity. Furthermore, some of the people that were Paul’s travellling companions for years were from Jerusalem and knew the Jerusalem community, like Barnabas and Silas who he travels with later.

It certainly seems as though at those early meetings, written documentation was simply not uppermost in the priorities, rather if Jesus’ predictions were to be taken as true, then at this stage, the apostles were still assimilating the significance of all that had transpired, following on from their amazement at the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the ascension on the clouds. Jesus is never in any of these saying “write this down before you forget it”, rather they are given this time in the subsequent period to assimilate this knowledge under the strength and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

But there are those who then do begin writing accounts, which Luke mentions without stating who. He could well mean Mark and Matthew themselves “many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have just been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the words” (Lk.1:1,2). The “many” could be referencing the accounts being collaborations among the apostles and early disciples in these documentation efforts. Note that in all of this there is no sign of urgency or panic regarding the loss of memories, the writing is simply allowed to take care of itself almost, and emerge organically out of the communal memory.

So what we have as “Mark”, traditionally held to be derived from some collaboration with Peter, is rather bare bones, perhaps indeed representing one of the first efforts at sequential collation of memories. Following this, there is no reason why the other writers could not dip into these efforts rather than write de novo. This might help understand both the similarities as well as seeming discrepancies in those subsequent accounts. This is because it could well be that they are nuancing the translation from Aramaic to the Greek differently, and even eccentrically. This means that even though they might be referencing Mark’s Greek text, yet their own memories of the same events are in spoken Aramaic, and particularly in the case of Jesus’ words. This means that they could have somewhat differening views of what Jesus meant in the Aramaic in the first place in certain sections where there are differences. All this, from a faith perspective would only add to the richness in meaning. So when we layer eyewitness impressions on top of a common textual source, it is possible to arrive at such dissimilarities.

This is why scholars like Goodacre stress on “mimesis” rather than a random editing and splicing. Rather “mimesis”, which refers instead to imitation, implies a creative reconstruction and rearrangement with necessary expansions by the subsequent author. He expresses that in antiquity, one would struggle to find two books that are more dissimilar.

We can make this conclusion purely from the fact that they were meeting and discussing this material, as they would have done with Paul, and added to the fact that the Churches which they represented already were practising a high Christology. Further, we considered the possibility o nuance in translation from Aramaic and sobjectively perceived meaning: each of the apostles has a first-person subjective impression of Jesus and what his message implied. This does not mean that any “gospel” was inaccurately translated, rather that there was no Gospel until this multilayered reconstruction that included personal perspective was performed, hence it does not impact upon accuracy of transmission.

In summary, the early dates of Paul’s letters, and moreover the documented high Christology of churches that were established at their time of writing, leads us to an early date for the cult of Jesus, and Christian orthodoxy.

Chapters 3 and 4

The work of the Spirit

Chapter has two passages that speak of the work of the Spirit, which convey the Spirit’s omnipresence: God “supplies” us with the Spirit (v.4), sent into our hearts (4:6), which is “received” by us (v.3). One entity cannot be received simultaneously by multiple entities, and at the same time it is the “Spirit if the Son” (4:6), thus all three are divine.

The Son is pre-existent in this verse since he pre-exists the his own birth. He is not subject to the Law as humans are, rather he is born into their manner of subjection. It is only by the action of the Divine Son in creation that we can even be called God’s children. This is the reason we are “adopted” whereas He is God’s “natural” Son. He pre-exists whatever kinship humanity might have with God. Note that v.6 is also trinitarian in that the Father sent the Holy Spirit “of” the Son into the hearts of humanity as a whole:

“(4) But when the fullness of time had come, God sent (ἐξαποστέλλω- send forth; ek-“out of”, apostello- “send”) his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, (5) in order to redeem (exagorazo, only used twice in this sense, this and 3:13) those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children (ἵνα τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπολάβωμεν) (6) And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir through God.” (Gal.4:4-7)

We can approach the interpretation of this verse from the oppositional themes of “promise” and “curse”. Paul describes how the law itself is a sort of curse because by it people are condemned “all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse ( κατάραν)” (Gal.3:10). He states the reason in the very same verse, that it is impossible to do literally everything that the law demands. In this sense he asserts that there is a manner of slavery under the law. He is extremely explicit in his condemnation of those who hold to works of the law as redemptive, calling them “foolish” (vv.3:1,3), rather contrasting it with “believing what you heard” (vv.2,5), and were this not the case then “Christ died for nothing” (v.2:21), and “no one is justified by the Law” (v.3:11) and “the law does not rest on faith” (v.3:12) the law cannot make alive/ righteous (v3:21), rather it “has imprisoned all things under the power of sin” (3:22), and that we were “imprisoned and guarded under it” (v.3:23) and that it was “our disciplinarian until Christ came” (vv.24). Paul then links all this teaching this with a favorite and prominent theme in his writings- contrasting the works of the flesh with the works of the spirit (vv.3:3) as seen in Romans Chapter 8. Here as in there, he uses this narrative to describe to us the manner of our spiritual adoption as sons and daughters of God, “in Christ”.

Continuing in the same vein, Paul offers the analogy of the offspring of Sarah and Hagar as the children of the promise/children of slavery (Ch.5:21 onwards). And then he does the following: He states that the promise refers specifically to Christ “the promises (ἐπαγγελίαι epangeliai) were made to Abraham and his offspring (or “seed” σπέρματι spermati)…that is to one person, who is Christ” (v.16). Paul concludes in vv.3:15-18 by saying that the the covenant promises of the Law are not nullified in Christ, rather they are received in him.

Thus it is against this background that St. Paul is stating that God “sends forth” his Son. The Son is then that which does which the Torah could not- he brings freedom, and the Torah held the nation of Israel until this action of the Son came to fruition. To be sure, both actions were of the Father, the sending of the Torah (law) and the sending of the Son. This makes the Son the fulfilment of God’s own Word and Law. Christ is the very Freedom of God that completes what was begun in slavery to his own Law (v.4:1,3,7). We become “one in him” (v.3:28), are “clothed in him” (v.3:27) and “belong to him” (v.3:29), but most significantly that through this “we receive adoption as children” (v.4:5,6,7), and like him, are able to call God “Abba” (v.4:6), through his Spirit that is given us (cf. Romans 8:14-17) “God in sending his own son accomplishes what the law in its weakness because of he flesh could not- my tr., to gar adynaton to nomou en ho asthenei dia tes sarkos, ho theos ton heautou huion pempsas…8:3).

IN SUMMARY, Jesus is the promise of God to his human creatures. Even the promise is only revealed in the fulness of time because it is too much even to conceive, and so it cannot be fully revealed until the right time- not only does God have a Son, but also through him, and through God’s essential attribute of Paternity, he promises to us an adoptive sonship too. That is the quality of what God wants to do for us and the fullest extent of its description. Ourselves and God are of ontologically two completely different natures, natures that could not possibly nor conceivably be more far apart which is precisely why the nature of the promise too is inconceivable. Nevertheless the one nature will “clothe” the other nature (v.27), just as a mother will embrace the child of her own flesh, so that we will be found “in him” (v.3:28). Jesus Christ is truly God because he is ontologically that Nature which likens to divinity, and hence divinity itself.

Chapter 6

Paul stresses on teaching, preaching and boasting in “nothing but the Cross”. As he says “may I never boast of anything except the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me and I to the world” (Gal (Gal.6:14) and “for I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1Cor.2:2);  “but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles” (1Cor.1:22-25)